Printable View
No, this is the first ever administration of a football Club where players haven't been released. Naismith is injured, but is still being paid as is Lafferty. Admin have let Russell and Smith go but the rest remain. Meanwhile the Pars can't meet their wage bill. It's a farce.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba
Eh? The announcements are due this afternoon, BBC speculating 11 players and 50% wage cut.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cropley10
In a liquidation event all points won are removed. In a situation where second contracts the result changes to a nil-3 loss to the offender.Quote:
Originally Posted by nonshinyfinish
Not sure what difference this makes, but if Rangers cheated Well wouldn't lose the points they won, we'd just gain them too.
STV reports that Rangers administrators Duff and Phelps have secured a court order to seize £3.6m from Craig Whyte’s solicitors. Collyer Bristow received money for season ticket sales sold to Ticketus before the takeover last May. It is understood that this will not affect any decisions on reduncancies
If 11 1st team squad are released, who would take at ER??
So.....in my book, that just about squares CW's account with Rangers. He is neither a debtor nor a creditor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pitlochry hibee
And it seems an IP agrees with me, too:-
An insolvency practitioner, experienced in dealing with handling football clubs in administration said: "To me it is quite simple. Mr Whyte has taken £24m out the club. Whether he is guaranteeing that money or not it doesn't matter. To me this means he has no right to that security over the assets." (from the Herald, 27/2/12)
Naeb'dy. We wouldn't be allowed to play them, apparently.Quote:
Originally Posted by jc1
Radio Clyde are saying no redundancies will be announced today and tomorrow's game goes ahead as normal. They're getting away with murder but it's merely a stay of execution. Justice is coming.
Anyone think that this delay of redundancies is because the Administrators are preparing the club for liquidation using the players as scapegoats ie refusal to accept pay cuts etc.
Speculation you say. No one has or will be released today. Meanwhile the Pars have to whistle for their cash.Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoCarpets
That would be contrary to the terms of their appointment by the Court.Quote:
Originally Posted by andrew70
In any event, if the players don't accept the revised wage terms on offer, they will be sacked.
...as do the Revenue, Glasgow Council, the local plumber etc etc...Quote:
Originally Posted by Cropley10
It's a strange scenario. Why are administrators looking for staff agreement on redundancies and pay cuts? They usually just say this, this and this are happening, like it or lump it.Quote:
Originally Posted by andrew70
Thanks CWG makes a bit more sense to me now. I guess we will need to wait and see the outcomeQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
My take on it is that they have one eye on a potential sale, which IMO they should. The more top players they retain, the better the product to sell on, and the more is brought in for creditors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba
It's a balancing act, though. They only have so much cash to spend. The longer they go on without any redundancies, the less they have to get them to the end of the season.
You seem to be well up on all this financial stuff, CWG. Not my realm of expertise at all. Do you think they'll be liquidated or will they come out of administration?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
If the players are paid in advance and they have the wages from when admin was appointed then I can see why they haven't been emptied yet as there wouldn't be any cost saving in releasing players whom have already been paid!?
I'm one page ahead of you in the manual!! :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba
So many people have asked me that recently. The short answer is fuctifano.....
There are so many variables in this that it's difficult to predict with any certainty. And, of course, as journalists dig more stories come out of the woodwork. For example, the latest story about the "unregistered contracts" might be enough to sink them, irrespective of any financial problems.
Crucial, though, are the following factors:-
1. the Big Tax Case. If that goes against them, they're done.
2. even if the BTC goes with them, would anybody actually want to buy a club that has a £15m tax bill, and
3. would anybody actually want to buy a club that has a £24m shortfall in its income over the next 4 years already?
4. irrespective of the BTC, what are the attitudes of the creditors to an arrangement for x pence in the £?
I come back to an earlier thought. If someone really wants to get involved with Rangers, they should buy Ibrox... which would help RFC to clear off the debts, allow them to stay at Ibrox, and provide a steady income for the investor.
And who owns Ibrox?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Someone like Ticketus maybe?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
As you say though the football club have got to dodge two massive bullets, the big tax case and the player contracts invertigations and who is to say there wont be more.
My Dad and me were gassing about the whole thing and his opinion was (early on in this whole thing) 'it feels like the way watergate was' I'm too young to know exactly what that means but I think it's in the way little bits of info keep piling up, revealed day after day.
RFC (in admin). Who holds a security over it? Craig Whyte, Ticketus, Rosemary the telephone operator ..... ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cropley10
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Why??? If their contracts are ripped up do they not become free agents and able to sign for whoever they
Your dad may have made a very apposite comparison. Watergate was before my time, too, but I recently read an excellent account of the Nixon presidency which went into minute detail of Watergate. Rangers it seems are also trying to hold back the tide; surviving day to day as the truth comes ever closer. As CWG has explained, they have enormous issues hanging over them which aren't going away. 'Follow the money', as Deepthroat said.Quote:
Originally Posted by EuanH78
RFC chasing Whyte for monies owed
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17232197
Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient hibee
:agree:
Mother of five ,or no.
:aok:
You have to bear in mind that this is administration. There are legal requirements that must be taken care of which by far transcend any bias, perceived or otherwise. By the way, I'm with you, its obscene that the Pars aren't getting their dough, but its not Rangers getting away with murder.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cropley10
If the administrators dont cut costs - which may be a universal pay cut rather than redundancies - they are being delinquent in their duties. Frankly, depending on when the salary pay dates fall due, there may be no advantage in making someone redundant today if theyve been paid up to the weekend. Just a thought.
There is another thread on this somewhere. The accepted wisdom is that players who weren't free agents at the start of the "closed" period can't play for anyone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by jc1
Go and argue with them on that thread :greengrin
RFCG, the holding company, have a floating charge over all of RFC's assets. However, that charge is for monies owed to them. As far as I can see, RFC don't owe RFCG anything, so the charge is useless.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I had a wee look and realised you were right, I did post on the Neil Alexander thread quoting from wiki the fact.
Anyway who's arguing, just asking. :greengrin
Getting the facts right are important
Deep Throat? Sally Magnusson?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba
This thread has it all......:hibees